vouch_reputation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'signed summary — no receipt history exposed', which hints at output format but omits side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or data mutation details. Insufficient for safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'Create'. Efficient in length, but could be more informative without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 6 parameters, 5 required, no annotations, and no output schema. The description fails to explain return type, required permissions, parameter roles, or consequences of use. Incomplete for practical use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 17% (one parameter described). The description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (agent_id, tier, etc.) beyond what the schema provides. The mention of 'signed summary' implies private key usage but lacks detail on how parameters map to the operation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and resource 'vouched reputation', and mentions the purpose of cross-gateway portability. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'create_gateway' or 'update_reputation', and the reference to 'WS-3' is obscure.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for creating a portable reputation, but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with other reputation-related tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.